Now, I hope you realize that the title of this article was meant to invoke interest (as a good title should). Some would accuse it of being strictly click-bait, and that may be a fair criticism. For those who follow and have read my BLOG, seen my social media posts, and/or heard my podcast, know I consider myself to be a Molinist. This article is about a trend that I keep running into, whereas certain Calvinist claim Calvinism, but it is defined in some very strange ways. My experience with Calvinism had always been of the 5-Pointer Variety (I’ll explain later in the article). I have begun to see, 1, 2, 3 and 4-Pointers claiming to be ‘Calvinist’ who are less ‘Calvinist’ than I am, so I guess I am a Calvinist, too.
The idea of ‘self-identification’ is something that puzzles me very much. I’ve discovered that this phenomenon doesn’t just happen in the LGBTQ world. Christianity has a group, well known and very vocal, that ‘self-identify’ even though there is little or no evidence to prove they are what they say they are. I think part of the problem is the definition for ‘it’ is very elusive and hard to pin down, so there are those that identify as ‘such’ yet hold no clear beliefs that can be easily ascertained and shown to be so. Of course, I’m talking about the world of ‘Calvinism’ and the ‘self-identified’ proponents that are in every way (well, at least most ways) …not. The problem, of course, is that Calvinism is hard to pin down, as it seems to have a very elusive sliding scale.
NO, I REALLY AM...
I’ve embraced Molinism for almost two years now, and to be perfectly honest it has opened as many questions as answers it has provided. I have begun to study its implications and ramifications as a system of theology and find it as appealing as any I’ve encountered. Just as a side note, Dr. Kirk MacGregor’s book (here) on Luis de Molina (‘founder’ of Molinism, if you will) is a good place to start your own investigation into the system commonly referred to as Molinism. If you want a more basic, and ‘straight to the point’, idea of what Molinism is, Tim Stratton (here) touches on what can be called ‘Mere Molinism’ covering the two pillars of what Molinism entails. ALL Molinist embrace the two pillars of Molinism; middle knowledge (MK) and libertarian free will (LFW). And yes, Molinist will disagree as to how these ‘pillars’ operate and how God uses them. But agree that they are His means, they do!
MOLINISM...YEP
In embracing Molinism, I had rejected the Arminian tradition (here) that I had been raised in and come to (if not at least slightly) embrace. I also had investigated the claims of Calvinism and found it lacking in explanatory scope, as it didn’t seem to align with what scripture (and experience) seemed to teach. In embracing Molinism I soon discovered that there are many ‘Calvinist-Molinists’ and I had originally thought Calvinism and Molinism were incompatible. The main reason that Calvinism (or Reformed Theology) and Molinism are compatible is there is no ‘Mere-Calvinism’ that ALL Calvinist would adhere to. Molinism helps with the ‘how’ God operates to accomplish His will. For example, the idea of Election as corporate or individual is not a Molinist claim. Some Molinist believe God individually elects, by means of MK and LFW. While other Molinist see election as corporate, again, God still using MK and LFW.
TWO PILLARS, CALVINIST NEED 5 (well...maybe...?)
Molinist-by the highest percentage possible, if not 100%- believe in the two pillars; MK and LFW, as I have already alluded. Calvinist, on the other hand, come in varieties of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 pointers. The acronym T.U.L.I.P. is often associated with Calvinism, but it is not the common ground for Calvinist as MK and LFW are for Molinists. Each of the letters stand for a short hand way to show different aspect of Calvinist teaching. It should be noted, and I readily acknowledge, that not all Molinist agree with the extent and application of MK and LFW, but they ALL acknowledge THEM, and to deny either MK or LFW (or both) is by clear definition non-Molinism. Whereas, Calvinist disagree if all the ‘points’ (or petals) of Calvinism are true.
Calvinist, just so
What I have discovered in this age of ‘Self-Identification’ is you can label yourself a ‘Calvinist’ and be no more a Calvinist than the President of the local Atheist club. It is HOW you define your Calvinism that is important to the discussion. There is generally (and yes, this is not universally accepted) 5 points of Calvinism that are given. Let me give a brief description of the 5 points of Calvinism:
T- Total depravity, that man is fully and totally fallen in his present nature
U- Unconditional election, God chooses some (the Elect) to be saved
L- Limited atonement, Jesus died for only the Elect
I- Irresistible grace, you cannot resist God’s call (to salvation)
P- Perseverance of the saints, the Elect will not ‘lose’ their salvation
I determined not to be deterministic
I rejected, what I came to discover was, ‘5-point-Calvinism’. In reality, I actually only rejected divine determinism of everything (the idea God DETERMINES everything, such as; sin, evil, my and your thoughts, etc.-though I do believe God DETERMINES some things-for example: the plan of salvation) and the points of Calvinism, all 5, can be affirmed by a Molinist (and probably Arminians as well), if parsed the right way. So, being a 1, 2, 3, or 4 point Calvinist just means you reject a petal of the TULIP. OF course, extremes are always possible, in what has become known as ‘Hyper-Calvinism’, which is simply fatalism, there is no place for free will (not even God has it). I think the title ‘Calvinist’ is a reaction to the fear of being called a heretic, pelagian, or semi-pelagian. ‘Neo-Calvinism’ is the form of Calvinism that is rampant today, accusing others of being ‘less-Calvinistic’ in some way or another. It is an interesting trend.
Limited, but not that much
In looking at the ‘petals’ of the TULIP you will find those that hold to 5-point Calvinism ‘redefining’ terms that seem to negate the points. For example, the most controversial, and probably the most rejected of the 5 points is Limited Atonement. Generally, Calvinist will claim Jesus died for ONLY the elect, those predestined before the foundation of the world to be saved. A self-professing 5-Pointer stated, “Limited atonement is the teaching within Calvinism which states that Jesus only bore the sins of the elect (those chosen for salvation by God) and that He did not bear the sins of every individual who has ever lived. This teaching is also called "particular redemption" and "definite atonement."”(i) Jesus’ death was ONLY for a limited group, the ‘elect’, and not for EVERYONE. Yet, other 5-Pointers seem to disagree with this ‘essential’ Calvinistic doctrine. A highly respected and well known 5-Pointer seems to disagree, “We do not deny that Christ died to save all in some sense. Paul says in 1 Timothy 4:10 that in Christ God is “the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” What we deny is that the death of Christ is for all men in the same sense. God sent Christ to save all in some sense. And he sent Christ to save those who believe in a more particular sense. God’s intention is different for each. That is a natural way to read 1 Timothy 4:10.”(ii)
Limited by Limited
To my Calvinist friends I would ask, how limited is it? It seems ‘limited’ is redefined as it suits the individual Calvinist. Of course, ‘true 5-Pointers’ will tell you that 4-point Calvinist are not Calvinist, “So-called four-point Calvinism fails the test of biblical Calvinism because this view tends to see the TULIP as an abstraction rather than seeing it Christocentrically. The TULIP only works when we see Christ at its center. Consider the TULIP as a chiasm with the "L" at the top of the pyramid. It is Jesus Christ which makes sense of all the doctrines of grace.”(iii) So, you can’t be a true ‘Calvinist’ (in a 5-Pointer sense) if you reject Limited Atonement. But as we have already seen, 5-Pointers love to redefine the term ‘limited’ so that the doctrine is more palatable (and I would argue be more biblical- 1 John 2:2 (CSBBible) “He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.”)
'Calvinist': a good description, not
I’m afraid that ‘Calvinist’ is as nondescript as ‘Christian’ is in our world today. Christian is often used of everything from the most orthodox (Eastern or otherwise) to a cult that creates their own ‘Jesus’. If someone claims to be a Christian the question should be, “what do you mean by that?” I think the same should be for the Calvinist, as well. The so-called ‘5-Pointers’ should be asked what exactly they mean by the 5 points, or petals, as we have seen limited is limited in its ability to explain itself. The way you parse out the points can make you as much a Calvinist as Arthur Pink (the most ‘hard-core’ Calvinist I could think of), just not in the same way! Calvinism, if it is to be consistent, can only be espoused in the ‘higher’ versions of it, the versions that championed hard determinism and hold to it consistently, any other version of Calvinism seems to suffer from inconsistency. If you waver on any aspect of hard determinism, well…you can still be a Calvinist, it seems, just as I am…you know…right?
(i) Slick, Matt https://carm.org/what-is-limited-atonement (acquired 06/28/2017)
(ii) Piper, John http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism#Atonement (acquired 06/28/2017)
(iii) Hendryx, John https://www.monergism.com/topics/bad-theology/four-point-calvinism (acquired 06/28/2017)